From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #48 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, August 18 1998 Volume 07 : Number 048 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F18 (Super) Hornet and Titan/Vortex musings. Re: Mikoyan Article 1.42 Re: SR-71 Revival F18 (Super) Hornet Reason to keep the SR down... RE: Reviving the Blackbird SR-71 Re: F18 (Super) Hornet Planting Nukes in US Re: Reason to keep the SR down... Re: Blackbird McNuggets Re: SR-71 engine thrust - Pratt & Whitney's new high thrust eng Golden Hawk ? F117 Not So Invisible ... Re: Golden Hawk ? Re: F117 Not So Invisible ... Air Crashes Re: Air Crashes RE: Air Crashes *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 16:55:57 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F18 (Super) Hornet and Titan/Vortex musings. On 8/17/98 8:12AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19980817081203.0077c890@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > At 09:27 AM 8/17/98 -0400, Martin wrote: > > > >Sooooo, how come the Navy is replacing a more capable (F14) airframe with > a less capable one (Super Hornet)!?!?!? > > > >Maybe I'm missing a some critical pieces of information here, but it > doesn't make much sense to me, what they're doing. > > > Not sure if Art "Never met a Hornet I liked" Benal is up to a rematch. > This whole topic was cussed and discussed 6 or 8 weeks ago. These posts > were full of technical goodies and should be in the old digests whose url > escapes me. > > Actually, I've been gone a couple of weeks and am just catching up now. The simplest answer to Martin's question is that the Super Hornet was ordered in order to keep Macair in the tactical aircraft business after the cancellation of the A-12. It was actually ordered by Dick Cheney, SECDEF at the time. The Navy did make one attempt to cancel it, but was overruled by DoD. Seeing which way the wind was blowing, the Navy went along from that point. Now, the program has taken on a life of its own, and if you're not "with the program", your career tends to suffer. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 16:59:18 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Mikoyan Article 1.42 On 8/16/98 4:22AM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > Anyone know what is the status of the Mikoyan Article 1.42? > I understand that it is cancell from my readings in AW&ST, but I > just read an article from a different aviation magazine (I don't remember > right now which one) that there are two prototypes under construction but > not known to be flowing yet. > > May the Force be with you > > Wei-Jen Su > E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu > > "Find a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life." > Confucius > This single completed I.42 demonstrator is still sitting in its hangar. Earlier this year there had been some talk that money had been found for a short flight test program starting late this fall, but the latest news is that this isn't true. Even less likely is money being found to finish the second demonstrator. Of course, given this is coming out of Russia, I wouldn't believe anything one way or another unless we can physically touch it. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 17:17:01 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 Revival On 8/8/98 7:02AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19980808070218.0075e030@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > Here, this will really frost Art...... > > ABC Evening News reporting on that photovoltaic powered "6 turning, none > burning" NASA craft, the ERAST or ERSATZ, is eventually expected to cruise > higher than an SR-71. All the way to 100,000 feet. Wonder why they didn't > nickname it Daedelus? Other than the fact that Daedelus eventually crashed. > > patrick > Actually, I've been gone for a bit, just catching up. It's a great device as long as you only want a very light payload, don't mind taking a day or two to climb to altitude, don't have to fly through weather to get where you're going, aren't in a hurry and don't mind being totally vulnerable. Actually, these things have real potential as communications relay devices, much cheaper than satellites. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Michael Leland R. Haynes wrote: > But the major advantage of the SR-71, its proponents say, > is its ability to deliver "reconnaissance on demand." > What is anyone's opinion on the possibility that high-altitude UAV's may already be providing this data.....but secretly! If they were, we'd have seen signs of it. Our lack of data indicates this sin't the case. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Greg: I just read where the Air Force's latest $1 billion NRO satellite was lost when the Titan 4 booster blew up during launch ascent... At $1 billion for the satellite and another $344 million for the booster, that would have paid for the SR-71 program for how many *decades*??? - --Based on FY98 funding, you could run the SR-71 for just under 34 1/2 years for the cost of the fireworks display. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's something else I haven't dwelt on before because I didn't want folks to think I was Too paranoid, but could be an explanation for some of the opposition to the SR revival. Some news reports last week talked about an article in an issue last week of the Washington Post (which I have not myself seen). In the article, senior unnammed diplomats were quoted as saying that one of the reasons all the inspections of Saddam's sites are telegraphed is that the Administration wants it that way. They have pressured the UN not to conduct surprise inspections for fear something might actually be found and this would then mean a confrontation because then doing something couldn't be ignored. Again, I have not seen the reported article myself. If true, this could be a possible reason to keep the SR down. If it's available, then it would eventually get used. Because of its surprise and penetration capabilities, it might actually find things around the world in places we don't actually want to deal with. If we scrap it, "Out of sight, out of mind". Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:21:27 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: F18 (Super) Hornet *Sigh*...as evident by my homepage (Tomcat21), I love the Tomcat too. But, facing the facts, its need replacing after 30 years in service. The need for a Phoenix is low, I don't think one has ever been fired. And at $1million a piece...expensive stuff. The Tomcat is a dedicated-role fighter, Super Hornet is multi-role. Sure, Tomcat's Mach 2.41is quicker than the F/A-18E/F, but speed isn't that necessary, especially after a certain extent. The Hornet's 1.8 is fine. Weapons...Tomcat is limited. AMRAAM requires modifications, Sparrow is damn useless...then there's the Phoenix as described. The TARPs Tomcats are of little use, apart from high-speed recon passes. Bombcats never got approved. If you wanna go by looks, hehe, Tomcat wins "Miss Universe" IMO, but the US military doesn't care about that :)...it'll be a sad day when the last Tomcat goes. James. - --------------------------------------------- I have gotten the impression that the F18 Hornet since its introduction = that it has been a "special" favorite of the US Navy, i.e., untouchable = plane when it comes to budgets and other Airforce and Navy programs. And = now the Super Hornet has arrived, to supposedly replace the F14 Tomcat. From what I've read the F14 still has a greater range, can carry more = armament, and has more powerful engines and speed, climb rate, etc.. Sooooo, how come the Navy is replacing a more capable (F14) airframe = with a less capable one (Super Hornet)!?!?!? Maybe I'm missing a some critical pieces of information here, but it = doesn't make much sense to me, what they're doing. - - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:33:18 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: Reason to keep the SR down... > >Art wrote: >They have pressured the UN not to conduct surprise inspections >for fear something might actually be found and this would then mean a >confrontation because then doing something couldn't be ignored. >If true, this could be a possible reason to keep the SR down. If it's = available, >then it would eventually get used. Because of its surprise and = penetration >capabilities, it might actually find things around the world in places = we don't >actually want to deal with. If we scrap it, "Out of sight, out of = mind". >Art > - -Martin's reply-->>> then I say don't over fly it then ... <<<--- This an incredible suggestion to make. Isn't the role and responsibility = of any superior power, is to maintain that superior power, and that by = always knowing what others are doing all around you. Wasn't is just a = few years ago, that the great US-of-A was considered to be the military = "global cop", that is, able to deploy any force anywhere in the world- = Without being taken by surprise of any threatening events. - -grounding the 30 year old BUT still very capable and paid-for SR-71 - -replacing the far more superior F14, with the much lesser (and more = expensive) super-duper F18 - -blowing up billions of dollars of satellite and Titan 4 rockets - - the list goes on ... Is this what happens to a super-power when it is no longer directly = challenged by any other strong power - these types of erratic and = irresponsible decisions are being made by supposedly well informed = military and governmental personnel. If a country is not willing to face the reality that war or the = potential of war which may mean death and destruction to both sides of a = conflict, then it should not put all that incredible cost and expense = into having a military, in the first place. It amazed me back then that = there was so much "concern" during the build up to the Persian Gulf war, = "of a blood bath". That so many soldiers may be killed. Soldiers are = trained to shoot and be shot at and to kill, whether army, navy, or = airforce. Indeed, it is a grave loss to families and friends and a = country when this happens. But war is war, and the defense against such = becomes even more critical. That is why it really concerns me of the prevailing attitude to scale = back in the military budget to the point that these types of above = mentioned politically motivated decisions are being made. I guess its very true - "...without a vision the people perish...", and = that lack of "vision" is one of not really knowing who your enemy is = anymore (post cold war) and being taken by surprise [India, etc.]; = "perish" because of ill-conceived ideas of what you should be doing and = when. Just my concerned editorial comments on the state of this union ... - -Martin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 20:41:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Reviving the Blackbird SR-71 On 8/12/98 10:46AM, in message <0B12E65D1FEBCF11B65C00A02461DF1302DB12B1@edsitp_exch1.itp.eds., "Cook, Howard" wrote: > I think our dollars will be misdirected here. There are things out there > more efficient and technologically advanced. This is a smoke screen. > > > David > The Regular Crewchief > It's good to be shifty in a new country. > > David (or Howard?): If there are such things, how come we have seen no sign of the products they produce? How come to this day tactical and Joint Commanders are bemoaning the lack of data such systems would produce? They wouldn't have to know where it was coming from, they would only care about the data. The data isn't being generated. How come we couldn't watch the Iranian long range missile test, even though we knew when it was going to be? Even when the SR and some satellites were super-classified, the product they produced, or the data derived from it, formed the basis for our actions. Today, that kind of data, derived from unknown product from a mystery source, are apparently not being generated. There may indeed be more advanced systems out there, and maybe they won't even be canceled in the next few years. However, it doesn't seem they are in service. That's one reason why tactical units kept asking for the SR, only to get shot down from higher ups, right up until the line item veto. Also, if such a system was operational, why After the line item veto, did the JCS try and find out how fast the SRs could be brought back again when Saddam shut down our U-2 flights (which he ca do any time he feels like it)? BTW, the answer to the JCS' question was blocked from being delivered at the AF Chief of Staff level. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 98 20:53:07 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F18 (Super) Hornet On 8/17/98 11:21AM, in message <199808171825.DAA21351@tkb.att.ne.jp>, "James Matthews" wrote: > *Sigh*...as evident by my homepage (Tomcat21), I love the Tomcat too. But, > facing the facts, its need replacing after 30 years in service. The need > for a Phoenix is low, I don't think one has ever been fired. And at > $1million a piece...expensive stuff. The Tomcat is a dedicated-role > fighter, Super Hornet is multi-role. > > Sure, Tomcat's Mach 2.41is quicker than the F/A-18E/F, but speed isn't that > necessary, especially after a certain extent. The Hornet's 1.8 is fine. > Weapons...Tomcat is limited. AMRAAM requires modifications, Sparrow is > damn useless...then there's the Phoenix as described. > James, F-14D is more agile, than E/F, has better sensors and can be equipped to carry any weapon E/F can and then some. AMRAAM was always planned for F-14, on the D it's only a software mod; may still happen. AMRAAM has some problems too, like locking on to wrong target when it goes active. > The TARPs Tomcats are of little use, apart from high-speed recon passes. Unusual opinion since they're the best tactical recon platform we have right now (as long as the SR-71s stay on the ground). In fact, there is now some talk of retaining F-14Ds in service after the rest go to be used as recon platforms carrying TARPS, because the Hornet still may not be able to handle this job. TARPS capability has never been exploited to the fullest because they want to designate the Hornet as a super recon vehicle, even though they haven't been able to get that to work in 15 years of trying. > Bombcats never got approved. > This will prove to be a surprise to those already flying them, including the LANTIRN-equipped ones. If you're referring to Quickstrike or the Block IV upgrade, that's a different, more extensive change. That would have produced an F-15E equivalent or better. Of course, it would cost more. That's why the wise decision was made to take 5-6 years longer and spend 22 times as much money to develop the less-capable Hornet E/F. > If you wanna go by looks, hehe, Tomcat wins "Miss Universe" IMO, but the US > military doesn't care about that :)...it'll be a sad day when the last > Tomcat goes. > > James. > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:31:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Planting Nukes in US Hey Skunkers, remember about 2 years ago I posted in this list my prediction of how easy is to plant nukes in U.S. soil... Well... sadly, my prediction is a reality... Read Aviation Week & Space Technology of August 17, 1998, pag. 52. It says the following: "A high-ranking defector from Russia's GRU military intelligence service told a House panel he had scouted potential locations in the U.S. for Soviet agents to hide portable nuclear devices that could be activated in case of war..." "But he maintained it was "possible" some of the so-called nuclear "suitcases" were on U.S. soil because many of the devices have disappeared from Russia..." From another sources I have, I heard there is around 100 "suitcases" nuke missing from Russia... So... it is more than enought to have one of those "suitcases" planted in all major U.S. cities and military installations... Remember when I predict of how easy is to get those nuclear warhead to U.S. like they do by illegal drug smuggles, illegal aliens, or even using submarines... "The defector said the simplest way to bring a portable nuclear weapon into the U.S. would be to emulate the routes used by drug smugglers, employing cars, speedboats or small planes. He said stealth technology could also be utilized to help Russian agents smuggle nuclear devices into the U.S. by land or sea..." May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "Find a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life." Confucius ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 98 01:19:02 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Reason to keep the SR down... Martin, Keep in mind I have not myself seen the article in question, only heard about it second hand via the radio. I agree with most of your heartfelt thoughts, except two: 1. Rockets blow up, sometimes. Launching the Titan/Vortex mission wasn't a foolish thing to do. That system does things that can't be done any other way (of course, we have to use what it tells us). The significant comparison, though is how much it costs relative to the SR-71, which does things it can't do. 2. A lot of policy and decisions get implemented because Washington has decided the "School Solution" (and remember "the Pentagon" is not synonymous with "the military") before it goes out to find out what's going on in the real world. If the real world doesn't fit in with the already decided course of action, then ignore the real world and report what the bigwigs want to hear. A good example of this is the CIA's study of a few years ago analyzing missile development around the world. Using our various open and classified systems, including a number that would be considered skunky, it announced that nations like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were 15-20 years away from developing long range missiles. They are flight testing such systems now and the CIA is being labeled idiotic. Reality is somewhat different. It was already the Administrations announced policy that there would be no threat developing within its term of office, so no work needed to be done on any form of missile defense. It was also policy that because of our brilliant diplomacy and wonderful influence, none of those folks in Russia or our good friends in Red China would ever sell any of their technology because they knew we'd be disappointed in them. Therefore, we could set the funding for our various systems development and also The Budget Of Various Intelligence Agencies in advance. Of course, those agencies that develop reports that confirm what we Know to be the Proper response must be doing it right. Now, CIA, when will Third World missiles be a reality? 15-20 years? Why, that's just what we thought it would be. You must be spending your money wisely. Carry on... This is the way the game is played and it's not just in Defense. It's rampant in Washington and Academia. Another thought. We had some discussions here about why we didn't see the Indian nuclear tests coming. There's quite a lot of open speculation that we in fact caused the nuclear arms race down there. India is not a nation of fools. They've always been worried about China. They and China have a history of not liking each other, border incidents and saber rattling. It was always thought, though, that the US would keep China in check if they moved that way. India sees, though, all the kowtowing we've been doing to China, granting waivers, practically anointing them the next superpower, etc., and gets nervous. They decide to remind China (who they dislike much more than Pakistan) that they can make it very costly for China to try and take advantage of the US' waffling by setting off a string of nuclear weapons (and if you can afford to set off five fairly rapidly, that means you've got a lot more). Pakistan sees this, and decides they better remind India that they better not move their way, so they set off a few themselves. All our technology doesn't anticipate this because it's not looking (or has been line-item vetoed) that way. After all, why look there when our Policy is that there is no problem? Art "Are we getting off-topic again?" Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:08:51 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Blackbird McNuggets Brent Clark writes that he purchased a small piece of honeycomb purportedly from SR-71A (61-7955). The material sounds like the honeycomb fill from the pyroceram "plastic laminate" panels in the chines, leading and trailing edge, and vertical stabilizer. These panels have been described by ground crew as "a fiberglass- asbestos composite." (You might want to keep it in a frame, Brent.) The honeycomb is often filled (or at least bonded) with a red high-temperature plastic. 955 is currently in storage/display at Edwards AFB South Base. Brent's piece may be from 955, as parts of nearly every Blackbird (and every variant) are available somewhere. I would have thought 954 would be a better candidate as there is so much of that ship in private hands. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 98 03:59:41 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 engine thrust - Pratt & Whitney's new high thrust eng On 8/12/98 6:37AM, in message , Martin Hurst wrote: > Maybe a bit off topic, but some fascinating news about Pratt & Whitney's > new high thrust engines. > I wonder if there any mil aircraft with similar engine thrusts !?!?! > I thought the SR-71 had the most engine thrust of any aircraft ? > Read on ... > ----------------------------------------- > SR's engine thrust is not the highest of any engine (F119, for example, is higher). What's unique about SR's is where it can produce, it, under what conditions, and for how long. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:49:53 +0100 From: "Andy C" Subject: Golden Hawk ? Being a little short on knowledge I have to ask this group if the following is bullshit or not..... Andy C - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------ I find this "official" posting of the first Atlantic crossing a little naive since USAF has had the capability for many years. The latest long duration unmanned craft is called the "Global Hawk", it's massive, with a wing-span bigger than that of a boeing 747. It's single turbo fan on "lean burn" can fly at 340mph for 24 hours, that 8160 miles!!!! (if anyone wants some more info. I'll be glad to provide it). The Atlantic seems a little insignificant compared to this. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 11:58:57 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: F117 Not So Invisible ... Looks like the F117 days of invisibility may be numbered ??? Who would have thought ... so soon after its impressive show in the Gulf. Is the US the only one working on this, probably not. From: AW&ST Washington Outlook - Aug 18, 1998 http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_wash.htm SHOOTING FOR RADAR CONTACT Pentagon officials have noted an acceleration in U.S. research on bistatic radar, which they believe will let them locate stealth aircraft and cruise missiles. "A lot is happening," an industry official said, but the focus is not clear yet. "There are several camps, but there is not much cross-pollination yet." The concept has a large, manned aircraft transmitting a massive radar signal from behind friendly lines while other aircraft--probably UAVs--fly over enemy territory carrying sensitive receivers. These receivers are designed to catch the radar signals deflected by low-observable aircraft and missiles. Modern high-speed computers will then plot the threat's position. Boeing is looking at a bistatic system as one of several long-term upgrades to its AWACS radar aircraft line. An upgraded AWACS aircraft would work in conjunction with a stealthy, large-payload UAV. USAF's Rome Labs is looking at another bistatic system that would use Teledyne Ryan's Global Hawk to pass data back to AWACS for processing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:01:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Golden Hawk ? On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Andy C wrote: > naive since USAF has had the capability for many years. The latest long > duration unmanned craft is called the "Global Hawk", it's massive, with a > wing-span bigger than that of a boeing 747. It's single turbo fan on "lean > burn" can fly at 340mph for 24 hours, that 8160 miles!!!! (if anyone wants Yeap! This is a real UAV. The first Global Hawk is being tested. The radius of this aircraft around 3,000 mi. For their official webpage, check: http://www.tdyryan.com/ May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "Find a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life." Confucius ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 98 13:02:27 EDT From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: F117 Not So Invisible ... Martin Hurst shaped the electrons & holes to say: >Looks like the F117 days of invisibility may be numbered ??? >Who would have thought ... so soon after its impressive show in the >Gulf. >Is the US the only one working on this, probably not. >From: AW&ST Washington Outlook - Aug 18, 1998 >http://www.awgnet.com/aviation/avi_wash.htm >SHOOTING FOR RADAR CONTACT >Pentagon officials have noted an acceleration in U.S. research on >bistatic radar, which they believe will let them locate stealth aircraft >and cruise missiles.... [Remainder of presumably copyrighted article snipped] The only thing I find surprising about this is the apparent involvement of the US Air Farce, given their huge investment low observables (LO) technology. As I understand it, there are returns, even from LO aircraft, which can be detected, it's just a matter of having sufficient computing power to sort out the signal from the noise, given a very low S/N ratio. Because of increasingly cheap computing power, a number of other countries have been looking at counterstealth technology for quite some time, as a less expensive alternative to making huge investments in expensive LO technology. Given that it apparently is just a matter of stealth vs. computing power, efforts to defeat LO technology shouldn't be too surprising. Any other comments? - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:25:30 +0100 From: "Robin Foster" Subject: Air Crashes This is completely off topic, but others do it so why can't I. I was wondering if anyone new of websites dedicated to major air crashes and the investigations that followed. I've recently become very interested in the topic and thought the best place to start would be the net, but so far I've found nothing. Thanks for any help. Rob Foster Robin.Foster@btinternet.com ICQ# 12255488 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:06:41 -0500 From: "Tom C Robison" Subject: Re: Air Crashes Regarding military crash investigations, see http://www.sonic.net/azfuller/ _________________________________________________ Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:14:42 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: Air Crashes Way off topic, but maybe the list owner will let this one slide by ... (Hey, if you asked the same request referring to a F117 or an SR-71 crash then it would be acceptable) :-) I did quick a web search using Web Ferret , with the search keywords: major "air crashes" investigations website Came up with the following. I have NOT checked it out myself yet, but just took a quick look at their front page. Maybe these will help you find what you are looking for. http://www.gic.ch/matafora/aircrash.htm http://www.itn.co.uk/World/world0806/080602w.htm http://www2.aero.com/catalogues/books/4162.htm http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/crash.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Foster [SMTP:robin.foster@btinternet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 3:26 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Air Crashes > > This is completely off topic, but others do it so why can't I. I was > wondering if anyone new of websites dedicated to major air crashes and > the > investigations that followed. I've recently become very interested in > the > topic and thought the best place to start would be the net, but so far > I've > found nothing. Thanks for any help. > > Rob Foster > Robin.Foster@btinternet.com > > ICQ# 12255488 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #48 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner